Our ancestors once cowered before royalty they believed were divinity made corporeal. These days, the notion of the monarchy is so outdated that supporters are reduced to citing tourist revenue in defense of a barbaric relic.

Other rationales — the divine right of kings, a repository of tradition, moral paragons, manifestation of the state, a (barely) living national symbol — have long been eroded by the tides of the history. So the last excuse for hereditary rule is that of the bean counters’ ledger: the cost-benefit analysis.

Kate and William’s royal nuptials will reportedly generate more than $1 billion in economic activity, supposedly a boon for commoners who each proffer but a few pence for the $60 million annual subsidy to the fusty Queen and her adulterous horse-faced brood. (Never mind that this sum excludes the costs of security, policing and vast estates and manors off-limits to the Exchequer; though at least a few years ago the royals were foiled in their attempt to pay for heating their drafty castles by tapping public monies meant for indigents.)

Tackier still is commemorative merchandise that makes up much of the prized economic activity. There are ashtrays – stub your cig in the face of the newlyweds; toilet seat covers – Kate and William can now grace your throne; or “regal prophylactics” – wrap your willie in a William condom for coitus with your fantasy Kate.

Raining on the parade, anti-monarchists say direct subsidies are $180 million, or triple the amount usually cited. And the royals are downright plebian as a tourist attraction; the crowning glory, Windsor Castle, ranks as only the 17th most-visited tourist site in England, easily surpassed by the nearby Legoland.

If the only justification left is tourism, then it’s time to imagine more lucrative schemes. Eliminating the royals would first free up all those tax dollars spent on such vital activities as Charles and Camilla’s 12-day yacht tour of the Caribbean in 2008 (a $430,000 bargain) or the heir apparent jetting across the pond in 2007 with a 20-member entourage to pick up an environmental award from Al Gore (a mere $228,000 tab).

If Clinton-era donors were willing to pony up $100,000 for a White House sleepover, think of how many über-rich would spend a million or two for a bacchanalia in Buckingham Palace. Or how much revenue, taxes and jobs the royal landholdings would generate as exclusive hotels and chic party rentals. Indian steel tycoon Laxmi Mittal, for example, reportedly dropped more than $50 million in 2004 for his daughter’s wedding, which included an engagement ceremony at Louis XIV’s old crib of Versailles Palace.

There is always regicide. A bit extreme, but it would only be taking the lead from London protesters who chanted “Off with their heads” while attacking a Rolls Royce-bound Charles and Camilla last December. Plus, with media saturation, what better way to capture viewers’ attention than televising a 16th-century-style beheading of the royal family.

Regicide has a storied past. During revolutions, most monarchs manage to escape popular wrath for murder, plunder, torture and other crimes of absolutism. But in the revolutions that define modernity — the French and Russian — the royalty met a well-deserved fate. The depredations they visited upon their countries are precisely why Louis XVI was guillotined and the Romanovs shot. Other less-known nobility — King Faisal II of Iraq, George I of Greece and Umberto I of Italy — were cut down by bullets for their crimes.

But, whingers may object, the Windsors while parasites are a mostly harmless lot. It may seem that way with all the garden parties and polo matches, but as head of a British Empire (rebranded as the Commonwealth of Nations) soaked in the blood of its forced subjects, the royals have never paid for their crimes. (For a terrifying account of the tens of millions killed by imperial British policy in Asia in the late 19th century, see Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis.)

What better way to help the English to topple a government rooted in medieval despotism, overcome their class deference and end a culture of hereditary idiocy than chopping off a few royal heads?

Plus, imagine putting the Queen’s head in a jar on public display. It would be the ultimate tourist attraction.

Comments

molesworth

04/30/2011 - 4:43pm

Thank you, thank you. As a Londoner who lives within walking distance of Westminster Abbey, falling across your website has been a revelation. I could just about cope with the blanket coverage, the endless repetition of the beauty of the pageantry etc. But the fawning deference and forelock tugging has really been excessive. Having only recently overcome my embarrassment to the unprecedented reaction to the death of Diana, those of us who are not monarchists (we do exist, and there are actually quite a few of us) have been subjected - no pun intended - to a nauseating spectacle.

I should mention however that the media didn't reflect what I was seeing and hearing. Of all the people i know, only two watched the wedding on telly, and while anti-monarchism may not be widespread, there is a lot of apathy (something we Brits do well) towards the Windsors and the institution of monarchy. So please bear in mind that we weren't all fawning.

"...Hey, Indy … let’s write articles more pertinent to OUR nation as a whole … I’m an independent voter, too … but don’t focus my political views/interests just on what’s happening abroad … which your paper seems to do WAAAY too often ... let’s help our own citizens first and focus on the problem at hand here at home … your articles focuses too much on minorities, causes, issues too specific to such a small %age of the the populace that maybe that is why your magazine is losing appeal …. just a thought … I wish your magazine well … KT

If Mr. Gupta thinks it is clever to bring up people's personal lives, and make fun of the way they look (see the 3rd paragraph's odious reference to Prince Charles) then I feel very sad for him.

He has clearly based this entire article on something he read by Christopher Hitchens (the Galileo simplifaction) and on watching a few episodes of Democracy Now! The stupid (there is no other word) tone of this article, which ends in the ridiculous 'tongue in cheek' notion that murdering the British royal family is the solution, leaves me slightly baffled. What exactly is the point in this article? It is tongue in cheek, we will be told. Well, isn't that wonderful?

The fact is, Gupta has no solution, and as an Englishman born and raised in the country, I can tell you that most English people don't either, which is why we sometimes like to moan about the royal family. But the situation is far more complex than this cynical and (literally) use-less article would have us believe. He may bring us statistic after cold statistic, but it doesn't impress me with the idea that he has given the role of the royal family any deeper thought than English University leftists (undergraduates, of course).

Furthermore, as opposed to taking the extremely easy and blind option of regurgitating opportunist mockery of Prince Charles' line of Duchy Originals food, as the author unsurprisingly did, I would like to point out that it is, and has been, a groundbreaking sustainable and organic food provider long (long!) before such things became fashionable and part of the consumer culture. Speaking of which, there has been no-one doing more REAL work (not just talking) to counter corporate and consumer culture than the Prince. Alongside his work to rid London of modern and ugly high-rise buildings (which frequently put him at odds with the corporate powers that be in the UK) there is also his charitable support for the re-invigoration of endangered traditional craft-work and artisans in my native country of Afghanistan.

He is clearly not such an easy target as people like Mr. Gupta might like to think. Alas, when one writes nasty and cruel writing with the intention of coming across as a left-ist champion of the people, the truth can often get obscured. Being an astute observer of the way the US Right-Wind media operates, Mr Gupta should know better, or perhaps he would rather we all descended into a world where we brought attention to people's personal lives and called them 'horse-faces'.... The reason Charles is an easy target is because this is the sort of puerile and childish stuff that is so often thrown in his direction and, quite rightly, he never responds.

A higher level of discourse would be lovely, if you don't mind. I'm sure Mr. Gupta is more than capable if he tries a little harder next time. Thanks.